motion in a September 2010 order in which it ruled that Cottonwood had 

satisfied NRCP 23's class action prerequisites and could therefore litigate 

the alleged defects on behalf of its members. 

Petitioners then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus, 

contending that the district court failed to undertake a thorough NRCP 23 

analysis and that, had the district court done so, it would have concluded 

that Cottonwood did not satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites. In 

their writ petition, petitioners ask this court to direct the district court to 

vacate its September 2010 order." 

"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of 

an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or 

station . ." International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 

179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160. Here, we conclude that 

partial relief is warranted, as the district court's order demonstrates that 

it did not conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis. See D.R. Horton v. Dist. 

Ct. (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 459, 215 P.3d 697, 704 (2009) ("[W]here 

a homeowners' association brings suit on behalf of its members, a 

developer may . . . challenge whether the associations' claims are subject 

to class certification. In doing so, the district court must conduct and 

document a thorough NRCP 23 analysis." (emphasis added)). For 

instance, the district court determined that NRCP 23's numerosity 

requirement had been met because more than one homeowner was 

alleging defects. Similarly, the district court determined that common 

'Alternatively, petitioners ask that we order the district court to (1) 

deny Cottonwood's motion for declaratory relief, (2) order the joinder of all 

Cottonwood's individual members, or (3) prohibit the action from 

proceeding as a representative action under NRS 116.3102(1)(d). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
' J. 

issues of fact predominated because all of the alleged defects existed in the 

duplexes' building envelopes. 

This NRCP 23 analysis falls short of what is required by law. 

See id. ("[A] shared experience alone does not satisfy the threshold 

requirements under NRCP 23. Instead, the court must determine, among 

other issues, which units have experienced constructional defects, the 

types of alleged defects, the various theories of liability, and the damages 

necessary to compensate individual unit owners." (citation omitted)); see 

also Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 

128, 136 (2012) ("[U]pon a motion to proceed as a class action, the district 

court must 'thoroughly analyze NRCP 23's requirements and document its 

findings." (quoting First Light II, 125 Nev. at 459, 215 P.3d at 704)). 

Accordingly, we grant the writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this 

court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate 

its September 2010 order and to conduct a proper NRCP 23 analysis. 2 

Afterward, the district court shall administer the underlying litigation 

consistent with our recent opinion in Beazer Homes. 

It is so ORDERED. 3 

Saitta 

2We decline to grant petitioners' alternative requests for writ relief. 

3We lift the stay of district court proceedings imposed by our April 7, 

2011, order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo & Blake, APC 

Feinberg Grant Mayfield Kaneda & Litt, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4